Could a falcon 9 win the bigelow prize?

[barrykirk]

Note that this is also posted in another thread.<br /><br />Here is a copy of the bigelow prize rules. <br /><br />Ten Primary Rules of the Competition <br /><br />1. The Spacecraft must reach a minimum altitude of 400 km (approx. 250 miles); <br /><br />2. The Spacecraft must reach a minimum velocity sufficient to complete two (2) full orbits at altitude before returning safely to Earth; <br /><br />3. The Spacecraft must carry no less than a crew of five (5) people; <br /><br />4. The Spacecraft must dock or demonstrate its ability to dock with a Bigelow Aerospace inflatable space habitat and be capable of remaining on station for at least six (6) months; <br /><br />5. The Spacecraft must perform two (2) consecutive, safe and successful orbital missions within a period of sixty (60) calendar days, subject to Government regulations; <br /><br />6. No more than twenty percent (20%) of the Spacecraft may be composed of expendable hardware (the term 'Spacecraft' encompasses the launch vehicle in its entirety, including but not limited to, any and all fuel tanks, external rockets, carrier craft, and boosters); <br /><br />7. The contestant must be domiciled in the United States of America; <br /><br />8. The Contestant must have its principal place of business in the United States of America; <br /><br />9. The Competitor must not accept or utilize Government development funding related to this Contest of any kind, nor shall there be any Government development funding related to this Contest of any kind, nor shall there be any Government ownership of the Competitor. Using Government test and launch facilities shall be permitted; and <br /><br />10. The Spacecraft must complete two (2) missions safely and successfully, with all five (5) crew members aboard for the second qualifying flight before the competition's deadline of January 10, 2010. <br /><br /><br />The tricky part is the no more than 20% expendable hardware part. <br /><br />Could a space-x falcon-9 with the 5.2 meter fairing do the jo

 

[abacus]

The spec is a little ambiguous:<br /><br />20% measured how? Cost, Volume, Mass, Surface Area...

 

[barrykirk]

Because it's so ambigous, there is an easy loophole.<br /><br />First stages are easy to re-use. If I make my first stage heavier than it needs to be, that increases my percentage re-usable mass.<br /><br />For example, if I have 77% re-usable mass with a standard Falcon 9. I can switch to the Falcon 9-5S with a bigger heavier first stage. I don't have to use the extra payload capacity. So, i've just increased the re-usable mass.

 

[josh_simonson]

Yes, but will SpaceX be able to retrieve, refurbish, re-certify and re-launch stages that had splashed down into the ocean in only 60 days? Just the logistics of moving the stuff from launch and construction facilities will eat 2 weeks of that. <br /><br />This challenge really calls for fly-back boosters that need minimal refurbishing. Perhaps they can push up the 'reuseable mass' portion by installing huge parachutes and airbags to allow for a very soft landing on dry land to eliminate most of the refurbishing component.

 

[mikejz]

depends if the booster is considered part of the 60 day requirment.

 

[space_dreamer]

The Spacecraft must dock or demonstrate its ability to dock with a Bigelow Aerospace inflatable space habitat and be capable of remaining on station for at least six (6) months – <br /><br />The Spacecraft must complete two (2) missions safely and successfully, with all five (5) crew members aboard for the second qualifying flight before the competition's deadline of January 10, 2010<br /><br />This is quite a challenge! I hope that Rutan, SpaceX or another US team can rise to this challenge. However I'm not convinced anybody is going to win this, there’s only 4 ¼ years left to do it.<br /><br />Does SpaceX have a manned program that there not telling us about?<br /><br />Does Rutans involvement with Tspace’s CXV rule him out as they were awarded $6M by NASA? <br />

 

[barrykirk]

Remember that scaled composites was pretty hush-hush until about a year before they were ready. Who knows what the Burt Rutans of the world are working on.<br /><br />Speaking about Burt, we haven't heard too much from him lately. I wonder what he's working on right now?

 

[mikejz]

I think SpaceX has it on there drawing boards, afterall they are quite specific in stating that the Falcon 9 WILL be man rated. triple redundent voting computers and everything. However, i don't think they have anything in terms of manned flight beyond maybe beginning the inital design work.<br /><br />What intrests me is the reusable 2nd stage, were I have heard it will reenter with the engine bell acting as a heat shield.

 

[barrykirk]

Using the engine bell as the heat shield. I'm not disputing that... In fact it sounds very intriquing.<br /><br />I would sure like to see that reference....<br /><br />Again, I don't know any details so I'd have no way of evaluating it one way or the other.<br /><br />As I've said, i've seen a couple of articles that state that they are planning on re-using their second stages, but no details have been provided.

 

[henryhallam]

Man rating isn't just about triple-redundant computers and reliable systems. It is also about keeping a paper trail of every part from materials acquisition through to installation and testing, and this is where additional expense will lie.<br /><br />Engine bell as a heatshield? Sounds a bit unstable, I'll be surprised if it works out to be economical to reuse the 2nd stage but I guess they have thought it through... where did you read that?

 

[mikejz]

I don't recall exactly, i believe it a posting talking about a converstation someone had with Musk.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"It [man rating] is also about keeping a paper trail of every part from materials acquisition through to installation and testing, and this is where additional expense will lie."</font><br /><br />In this light pretty much all modern industrial processes are 'man rated'. You buy a new car and there is a manufacturing flaw, it can be traced to the guy who was working on the assembly line that day and maybe forgot to tighten some bolts, or if it's a faulty part from subcontractor it can be traced to the subcontractors system and find out who screwed up there, and so on, iteratively. All this without making a big fuss about it nor costing millions per car.<br /><br />Man rating is more and more outdated term, referring to early human spaceflight era where missiles originally designed to lob nukes were converted to carry astronauts.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Man rating isn't just about triple-redundant computers and reliable systems. It is also about keeping a paper trail ...</font>/i><br /><br />Just launch from a different country (or in international waters) that have different rules. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /></i>

 

[henryhallam]

You bet I would ride it just the same, but don't expect 1 in 100 loss-of-crew if you do that!

 

[vt_hokie]

Speaking of redundancy, the X-33 was being designed with triple redundant systems, but the VentureStar was intended to be quad redundant, iirc.

 

[josh_simonson]

Falcon is designed to be the simplest, most reliable rockets available. I believe I read that their failure rate is supposed to be 2% or better on the falcon I. Combine that with an escape tower and your odds of surviving launch are better than 99%. Getting back down has nothing to do with falcon though...<br /><br />Your escape tower would be hard to re-use too...

 

[barrykirk]

Paper trail.... Sounds like ISO 9000

 

[mikejz]

I going to take the educated guess that both the Atlas V and Delta IV are built to ISO 9000, so therefore, if that is true, what is the issue with man rating them?

 

[barrykirk]

At what point in the launch do you jettison the escape tower?<br /><br />Can you plan to use the escape tower to further boost the rocket and detach it just before it runs out of fuel?<br /><br />I mean you've got a fully fueled rocket and you've already boosted it quite a ways to orbit. Why not use it.<br /><br />It's just a little extra push, but every little bit helps.<br /><br />It does make the tower less of a dead weight than it would otherwise be.

 

[kdavis007]

Most likely..

 

[barrykirk]

If the escape tower contains multiple rockets that can be lit selectively depending on how much velocity is needed to escape than it makes things much more interesting.<br /><br />Assume that the max escape is required for a pad abort.<br /><br />Shortly after liftoff, fire a couple of the mini rockets from the escape tower when they are no longer needed. This provides a little extra delta V but also lightens the load.<br /><br />In essance, the escape tower gets lighter as it requirements go down later in the launch. And it gets to provide a little extra delta V.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The Clipper does not have an escape tower, the escape rocketd are mounted on the aft part of the spacecraft.</font>/i><br /><br />The proposed t/Space CXV has a somewhat similar design.</i>